Every bible of the reformation was based on the Traditional texts. No bible of the reformation was based on the Alexandrian text type. That is a fact of history. Zwinglie preached from a bible based on the Traditional text. Luther was reading a Greek copy of the Traditional text when the words "The just shall live by faith" jumped out at him. Every bible translated as a result of the preaching of these men, to be used in the churches being formed, was based on the Traditional Texts. Tyndale's 1525, Luther's 1525, Calvin's Geneva 1557, Olivetan's 1535, Biestken's 1558, Danish Christian III 1550, Diodati 1607, Swedish Uppsala 1541, Czech Bible 1607. The only possible exception would be Wyclif's Bible of 1382, which was based on the Latin Vulgate, but no historian suggests the Wyclif bible was instrumental in the English reformation.
As usual it is a to see how the posters avoid the issue being discussion. Ho-hum, looks like another ignorite in the making, interested more in politics and misrepresentation and diversion and seeking fudge factors than anything else.
First, though, the Hebrews 3:16 reference is actually a good example where the Reformation Bible was correct (as is the Latin but not the alexandrian text) even on a seemingly small accent issue, as given in the English Bibles, including the King James Bible. Which is why the Geneva and Tyndale agree with the King James Bible, although the NKJV does not. You can see the references at post 14:
All this is a diversion from the thread, which is one reason why I have placed a number of forum posters on ignore. The question is who is here to share and learn ... iron sharpeneth.
As usual it is a to see how the posters avoid the issue being discussion. Ho-hum, looks like another ignorite only interested in politics and misrepresentation is in the making.
First, though, the Hebrews 3:16 reference is actually a good example where the Reformation Bible was correct (as is the Latin but not the alexandrian text) even on a seemingly small accent issue, as given in the English Bibles, including the King James Bible. Which is why the Geneva and Tyndale agree with the King James Bible, although the NKJV does not. You can see the references at post 14:
All this is a diversion from the thread, which is one reason why I have placed a number of forum posters on ignore. The question is who is here to share and learn ... iron sharpeneth.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Ignorite? I've defended the KJV on other sites... Even held a debate about the superiority of the KJV against modern versions. One in which you were a cheerleader to. Of course you and my debate opponent were eventually shown the door and banned.
Put me on your ignore list, as you are an unrepentant heretic.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
Reformation Bible - refers to a text as well as to a time
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
translations such as Tyndale's, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, or the 1560 Geneva Bible would clearly deserve the name "Reformation Bible"
Definitely.
“The Geneva Bible .. was a masterpiece of Renaissance scholarship and printing, and Reformation Bible thoroughness” (David Daniell .. Bible in English, p. 291). . "
If one is using the term "Reformation Bible" only to describe the Bible of the Reformers, Baptists and evangelicals of the early.mid 1500s, then it would be so limited.
However in proper usage the term refers to the text as well, with its historic lineage. Which is why it is 100% proper to refer to the 1602 Reina Valera, the 1611 King James Bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling (1619), the Diodati and dozens of other Bibles as Reformation Bibles.
The forum topics are fascinating and get my attention, and my appreciation is for those true and consistent defenders of the pure Bible.
btw ... If anybody wants to discuss other forums, they should be specific, preferably with a link, so the posters can read the forum and develop their own opinions of the material. You can be quite sure that offhand references are tainted by the speaker.
Returning to the topic, this next post is from Tallen, very much non-KJB yet sympathetic to the position of Theodore Letis. The forum itself is a smidgen strange in 'moderation' . This quote is helpful, since it shows the phrase being used in the wider sense.
The forum topics are fascinating and get my attention, and my appreciation is for those true and consistent defenders of the pure Bible.
btw ... If anybody wants to discuss other forums, they should be specific, preferably with a link, so the posters can read the forum and develop their own opinions of the material. You can be quite sure that offhand references are tainted by the speaker.
Shalom,
Steven
Hi Folks,
What Avery isn't telling you is that the above debate I mentioned, was held at an atheist website. IIDB.com Avery was banned, along with my debate opponent. I wasn't last i checked but I haven't been back since the debate ended.
Now when Avery wants to return to reality and quit hiding in the theological shadows of the heretics and embrace true Christian Doctrine, he will need to apologize to those he has slandered with his ignorant babblings.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
If Peter Ruckman uses the phrase, that is excellent on his account. Although if he limits the term to the KJB (do you have any evidence for that ?) this would be an improper limitation.
The KJB is only one example, from our perspective the purest and perfect form, of the Reformation Bible. Which is simply the proper scholarly term for the Bible that was accepted by the Reformation and for 100s of years by essentially all evangelical believers and today by all who hold to true tangible infallibility with inerrancy.
While the Received Text is a related phrase, the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, applies specifically to the source language manuscripts. While the Reformation Bible applies to Bibles in all languages, source and target both, making the phrase the most precise scholarly term for the text-form with historical lineage.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
As you can see, Avery continues his ignorant slide into intellectual obscurity in that he can not read. I clearly stated Ruckman views the TR and Masoretic texts to be the "Reformation Text" and not the sole title of the KJV. Yet Avery will now continue to post obscure references of the Reformation Bible being the KJV, etc. all the while not believing what the Bible teaches.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
The next is a list I put together with some scholarly usages of the phrase "Reformation Bible".
The reformation of the Bible, the Bible of the Reformation - p.23 1996
Jaroslav Pelikán
"and the effect of the Reformation Bible on art, music and literature of the period"
The making of the English Bible - p.14 1982
Gerald Hammond
Chapters 1-3 describe the Reformation Bible, the work of the patriarchs of
English Bible translation, William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale. ...
The seekers: the story of man's continuing quest to understand his world - p.118 1998
Daniel Joseph Boorstin
Luther .. provided the treasure- house of Christian faith in a new form, which came to be called the Reformation Bible. Simply by translating the Bible into German ...
The Cambridge history of the Bible - p.139 - 1975
S. L. Greenslade
The 'Carl XII Bible' of 1703 is also a mere revision, with only a few
alterations and emendations; in this shape the Reformation Bible survived many ...
The Bible as book: the Reformation - p. 65 - 2000
Orlaith O'Sullivan, Ellen N. Herron
Indeed, if asked to find a synonym for 'The Reformation Bible', the immediate
response might well be 'The Vernacular Bible'.
"Equivalence or Power ?: Authority and Reformation Bible Translation"
Richard Duerden. - Chapter in above book - p. 9-23.
The great high priest: the temple roots of Christian liturgy - p. 359 - 2003
Margaret Barker
'Are there any indications that they [Jerome and the Reformation Bible
translators] chose the MT in contradistinction to alternate Hebrew texts forms of whose existence they were aware but which they passed over ? ...
Secret leaves: the novels of Walter Scott - p. 215 - Literary Criticism - 1985
Judith Wilt
David Murison, among others, has called the robust Scripture of the
Reformation Bible "the second language of Scotland" ...
Bible reading in Sweden: studies related to the translation of the New Testament - p. 15 1990
Gunnar Hansson
But for ecclesiastical use, the Reformation Bible was not replaced until 1917 (the Apocrypha in 1921). The new translation was done by a commission which ...
Nationalism, Positivism and Catholicism: The Politics of Charles Maurras and French Catholics 1890-1914 - p. 230 2002
Michael Sutton
Rousseau . Old and New Testaments: the culprit was now designated as the Reformation BibleSignificant, especially after .....
English Reformation Literature: The Tudor Origins of the Protestant Tradition - Modern Language Quarterly, 1983
FJ Levy
... scores truly striking successes in only the last of these categories, in its effort to read Homer and Vergil through the filter of the Reformation Bible and in ...
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 02:20 AM.
This was a little write-up I put together about this question.
===============================================
The Reformation Bible is both a popular and scholarly term for the Bible developed and read and studied and embraced by the Reformers and that was the base of most all the Bibles used until the decrepit "revision" by Westcott and Hort. This Reformation Bible NT was based on a pure Greek text that was developed and refined by Desiderius Erasmus, Robert Étienne (Stephanus) & Theodore Beza in the 1500s (and utilized by their Reformer compatriots like Luther and Calvin). The most well-known English Bibles based on this text are Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva and the King James Bible. (The incredible skills and understanding involved would be another longish post.)
This term - Reformation Bible - is often interchangeable with "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" another term for these Bibles. However the "TR" term has the major limitation of generally being applied only to the underlying Greek text editions, While Reformation Bible directly (without an added description like TR-based) refers to all the editions in dozens of languages, like English and Spanish and Portuguese and Dutch and Syriac and Armenian in addition to the underlying Greek. Thus often it is a far more accurate and descriptive and easier term, while it also gives the historic milieu in which this Bible began to flourish.
Received Text based Bibles is also an acceptable, although awkward, term in scholarship and popular usage. While you will find some posturing against that term on the Internet from the anti-pure-TR contingents, it is the one other perfectly understandable and acceptable phrase for this incredible group of pure Bibles in dozen of languages. If you are interested, I could list the Reformation Bible editions in five or ten languages.
When scholars use the term Reformation Bible the only difference is that they are not necessarily referring to the Bible as pure. The purity is the view of those of us who accept, read and receive the Reformation Bible as the pure word of God. The scholar could be using the term simply to refer to the Bible in a historical manner. The scholar can use the term whether he favors the Reformation Bible, opposes it or is secular and indifferent. While Reformation Bible defenders use the term in a very favorable manner, "Reformation Bible" is in a scholastic sense neutral usage, and can be used by anybody properly.
Today the Bible in use in English that fully reflects purely the Reformation Bible is the King James Bible. The earlier English Bibles do as well, eg. Tyndale, Coverdale and Geneva as mentioned above. (Geneva and KJB reflect the more purified form, after the work of Stephanus and Beza). However all those others are little used, as the English Holy Bible (KJB) took their place in the 1600s, due to its accuracy and majesty.
And then there are other versions today that are largely translated from the same Received Text, often resulting in a type of muddied reflection of the glory and majesty and accuracy of the King James Bible, such as the NKJV or Young's Literal.
The versions in use today that have absolutely nothing to do with the Reformation Bible are legion, the alphabet soup in the bookstores. From the Version-of-the-Month Club we have the ASV, NASV NIV, TNIV, RSV, NRSV, HCSB, ESV, NEB, REB (Revised English), NJB (New Jerusalem), GNT (Good News) , TEV (Today's English), NAB (New American) NWT (New World) , LB (Living), NLT (New Living), Message, Amplified and Emphasized along with Moffat, Weymouth, Goodspeed, Williams, Cassirer and Phillips. These are examples of versions put out in the last century and a quarter that you might see in a bookstore today that are totally unrelated to the Reformation Bible.
The Vulgate-based RCC Bibles (defeated by the Reformation Bible in the Reformation battle of the Bible, a little-studied and less understood part of our Bible heritage) such as the Rheims NT are also not the Reformation Bible. New RCC versions have been based on the counter-reformation "Critical Text" (essentially the alexandrian text of Westcott-Hort) used in the versions above. NJB and NAB especially are RCC-backed editions and they also utilize the RSV and NRSV. Afaik the RCC has never endorsed a Reformation Bible in any language in history, and the editions of Erasmus were put on the Index librorum prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) which was active for about 400 years, into the mid-20th century. There are reports that the Index was suspended or eliminated in the mid-20th century, however the details are unclear and with RCC pronouncements the details are often different than the media reports.
My personal view is that knowledge of the history of the Reformation Bible is virtually an essential prerequisite to understanding the Bible discussions today. The paradigms of the Bible text were radically different than that popular in today's 'modern scientific textual criticism' and thus the resulting texts are entirely different. The labourers on the Reformation Bible utilized a marvelous skill, industry and diligence in their work and had an incredible understanding of the Bible text, as well as of the Biblical langauges. And the Reformers viewed the Bible as the pure word of God, rare (or impossible) among the textual critic scholars. For studies, it is fascinating to read the RCC-Reformation debates of that age, with men like William Whitaker and George Wither and William Fulke defending the pure Bible, and later men like Francis Turretin and John Owen adding additional insights.
On the Tanach (OT) there was a similar battle, with the Reformation defending and utilizing the Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text as the source text for all Bibles, against any usage of the corrupt Greek OT "LXX". In that case historically Jerome in 400 AD had been very helpful in laying the groundwork for the Reformation Bible understanding of the pure Tanach (OT) by his work in rejecting the Greek and studying Hebrew, living in Bethlehem, using the library at Caesarea and translating from Hebrew to Latin. Ironically, Jerome in so doing laid the groundwork for the acceptance of the pure Tanach (OT) today.
Today the principle battle alternatives are simple:
a) the Reformation Bible, in English represented by the King James Bible, and
b) the modern versions, a couple of hundred versions based on the textcrit scholar's alexandrian critical text (e.g. NA26 and NA27 in recent years).
=============================================
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 02:28 AM.
The phrase "Reformation Bible" (another phrase is the "Bible of the Reformation") is clearly an excellent phrase and is used by many. KJB defenders, Textus Receptus folks, those with Reformation doctrine, specific Bible scholarship and general scholarship. Thus to see it attacked is rather strange.
The problem I have, as clearly addressed in the OP, and followed up on my next post, is that Avery is writing his own version of the phrase when he said: "And the purity and perfection and majesty of the Reformation Bible manifests fully in the Holy Bible, the Authorised Version, the King James Bible."
The other versions which were definitely part of the Reformation should happily use the term "Reformation Bible." To suggest the KJV is the full manifestation of the Reformation Bible is simply KJVO prejudice. Especially when the KJV came at the very end of the Reformation. Is it based on Reformation texts? Certainly. Did it have an effect on the Reformation? Hardly.
But, once again, this thread shows that Avery cannot ignore us and will simply butt into a debate without considering what has been said and quoted.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Every bible of the reformation was based on the Traditional texts
to see how the posters avoid the issue being discussion. Ho-hum, looks like another ignorite in the making, interested more in politics and misrepresentation and diversion and seeking fudge factors than anything else.
Linear Mode
